Did Pelosi And The Rest Of The Fear-Based Democrats Screw Up Impeachment?

Quote of the week comes from Georgia U.S. Senate candidate Teresa Tomlinson, a progressive, a super-smart attorney and, until earlier in the year, the very successful mayor of Columbus:

It’s fear that cripples the Democratic Party. Fear of our policies, fear of who we are, and fear of the Republicans. Yes, fear is what has politically cost us in the last many election cycles.

One cannot lead if one is afraid. The thing about leadership is that people want their leaders to be brave. They care less about what you think on the issues than whether you have the moxie to fight for them and the strength of conviction to tell them what you really think.

Instead of doing her constitutionally-mandated duty of beginning the process of removing the criminal in the White House, Pelosi-- a victim of her own hype about how sharp and strategic she is-- has been playing political calculus and, in the process, may have blown the chances to impeach Trump.

Early yesterday morning, the Sun Sentinel broke the news that garden variety congressional Democrat Ted Deutch, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, has finally gotten around to backing impeachment. It was in an OpEd penned by Deutch himself, No More Debate. Impeachment Inquiry Is Underway. But have they waited too long to win the battle of TV ratings-- and public support? "Although Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony may not have been a summer blockbuster," wrote Deutch, "it confirmed the damning conclusions of his report. The investigation revealed substantial evidence that President Trump obstructed justice. And that the Special Counsel did not exonerate him."

Why it wasn't a summer blockbuster isn't addressed by Deutch. Everyone inside the Beltway was tuned in-- but not the national audience that would have been had it been "important enough" to be part of impeachment. If the Democrats didn't think it was impeachment material, why should people take time out of their busy days to watch this "inside baseball" stuff? That's where Pelosi (and Nadler) miscalculated. Did they blow the chance to turn public opinion decisively in favor of impeachment, the way the Nixon television impeachment hearings did?

The most recent Reuters poll (by Ipsos) has some important numbers to consider. Among registered voters, 59% say the country is heading in then long direction. (55% of independents agree.)

Among registered voters, Trump's job approval is 40%, with disapproval at 59%. (Among independents, it's 42% approve and 51% disapprove.)

People polled say the Mueller testimony didn't sway them much in terms of impeachment. "Among those [71%] who read, saw or heard about Mueller's testimony, 47% said it made no difference in their views about impeaching the president. The public hearings had opposing impacts based on partisanship: among Democrats, 48% said they are more likely to support the process of impeachment that could ultimately lead to Trump’s removal from office, 8% said they are less likely to support impeachment and 44% said they feel the same as they did prior to Mueller’s testimony. Whereas for Republicans, only 3% said they were more likely to support impeachment, 42% said they were less likely, and 54% were unchanged. Independents were split, with 26% saying they are more likely to support impeachment and 29% saying less likely. 45% of Independents said they feel the same as they did prior to Mueller’s testimony."

Even after the hearings in which Mueller explicitly said he did NOT exonerate Trump, 35% of voters believed the had exonerated Trump and just 41% were clear-minded enough to understand that he hadn't. And a new Quinnipiac poll shows that although 51% believe Trump is a racist and that 71% are "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" that a foreign government may try to interfere in the 2020 elections, and that a 52% to 40% majority said that Trump did attempt to "derail or obstruct" the investigation into the 2016 election, 60% of registered voters said Congress should not begin impeachment proceedings against him. (61% of Democrats do support impeachment.) Now... back to Deutch: "Trump," he wrote, "claimed victory. He seems to think that Mueller’s performance wasn’t enough to trigger an impeachment inquiry. Sorry, Mr. President, the question is no longer whether the House should vote to proceed with a formal impeachment inquiry. The inquiry has already begun." But did Pelosi and her fear-driven caucus botch the process with their incremental approach to even this?

The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole authority of impeachment. Officially launching an impeachment inquiry has never been a prerequisite to using that authority. The Judiciary Committee may refer articles of impeachment to the whole House for a vote at any time.

In the past, a resolution directing the Judiciary Committee to consider impeachment was needed to grant the committee additional subpoena authority and financial resources. That was the official start of an impeachment inquiry.

But times have changed. In 2015, Republican leaders gave committee chairs broad subpoena powers-- powers that Chairman Nadler retains today.

No additional step is required. No magic words need to be uttered on the House floor. No vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry is necessary.

The Judiciary Committee officially started its investigation into the abuse of power by President Trump on March 4, 2019. The stated purpose was to consider all constitutional remedies for presidential misconduct, including impeachment. In every meaningful way, our investigation is an impeachment inquiry. The Judiciary Committee already has the power to refer articles of impeachment to the whole House.

The Trump Administration has taken unprecedented and unconstitutional actions to ignore congressional subpoenas and pressure witnesses not to appear. President Trump has turned the White House into a black box. The Justice Department fabricated a theory of blanket immunity and distorted claims of executive privilege. The Administration wants to silence the witnesses to the President’s obstruction.

But the American people deserve to hear from former White House Counsel Don McGahn, under oath, about when the President ordered him to fire Mueller. And from Corey Lewandowski about when he was asked to narrow the scope of the investigation to protect the President. And from former Attorney General Jeff Sessions about President Trump’s pressure campaign to take back control of the investigation.

If the suggestion that we are already in the midst of an impeachment inquiry sounds farfetched, look to last week’s court filings by the House counsel. To break the administration’s stonewalling, the House lawyers explained that the Constitution gives the House “a constitutional power of the utmost gravity-- recommendation of articles of impeachment.” Since Department of Justice policies won’t allow the prosecution of a sitting President, only the House of Representatives can ensure that the President is not above the law.

As we told the court, we already have the power. We don’t need a vote. We need President Trump to stop obstructing.

The committee has said repeatedly that impeachment is on the table. Legal experts, and now Robert Mueller himself, confirmed that the Special Counsel’s investigation was never capable of holding a sitting president accountable. Justice Department regulations ensured that was the case.

The remedies for presidential misconduct, including impeachment, are in Congress’s hands. Now that we have Special Counsel Mueller’s report and testimony, it is time for the witnesses of the President’s wrongdoing to appear before the committee as part of our ongoing investigation.

As Chairman Nadler noted in his opening statement last week, “We will follow the facts where they lead. We will consider all appropriate remedies. We will make our recommendation to the House when our work concludes.”

We don’t need to launch an impeachment inquiry. It has been under way since March.

Yesterday, Politico's whip list showed that over half the Democrats in the House (118 out of 235) now favor opening formal impeachment proceedings against Trump. The latest members to announce their support, besides Deutch, are Eliot Engel (New Dem-NY), Mike Levin (D-CA), Jennifer Wexton (New Dem-VA), Jason Crow (New Dem-CO) and Katherine Clark (D-MA), a member of Pelosi's leadership team.

Politico: "The lawmakers quietly working to organize support for Trump’s impeachment say there are two important figures to watch in the next few weeks. Assistant speaker Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), who is running for an open Senate seat against a primary opponent who has embraced impeachment proceedings, and Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), a civil rights icon who has questioned the legitimacy of Trump’s election but so far deferred to Pelosi on impeachment. Though there’s no indication he’s changing his tune, Luján’s support for impeachment proceedings could help unlock the backing of a slew of freshman Democrats who Luján helped elect in 2016, when he ran Democrats’ campaign arm, pro-impeachment lawmakers say. And Lewis’ support would carry significant sway with members of the Congressional Black Caucus who have remained on the fence so far. Lewis has repeatedly been asked for his opinion on impeachment proceedings but has repeatedly indicated that he’s deferring to Pelosi."

That primary opponent Politico referred to as the person Luján is running against and who has embraced beginning impeachment proceedings is New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, a strong and dedicated progressive. She had forced the generally conservative Luján to flip flop on issue after issue. Because of her he now claims to support Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal, though he barely understands what either is. Yesterday, Oliver gave us a statement on Luján's hemming and hawing about impeachment. "For the good of our democracy," she wrote, "I am asking Congressman Lujan to use his leadership position and join my call for impeachment so that we can hold this president accountable and prevent any further abuses of power by the president. We must take action now to protect our democratic process by impeaching President Donald Trump. What’s more, we can hold this president accountable and still pass important legislation like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All."

Please consider contributing to Maggie's campaign for the New Mexico Senate seat by clicking on the Blue America 2020 Senate thermometer just above on the right. Not only will she make a better senator than Ben Ray Luján ever would, she'll actually make a great senator, one like Jeff Merkley, Mazie Hirono, Tammy Baldwin, Brian Schatz and, most of all, Tom Udall, the New Mexico progressive who is retiring now. It would be tragic to replace a progressive like Udall with a fear-based conservative like Luján.